ABRAR KHAN ALIAS ABRAR SAMIULLAH KHAN v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND 4 OTHERS
A482/10310/2025 · 2025-12-05
Brij Raj Singh
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 186787 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 186787 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10310 of 2025 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rajdeep Singh, learned AGA-I and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of entire maintenance proceedings of Case No. 1317/11/2018, Smt. Ayesha Khatoon etc. Vs. Abrar Khan, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich (in short "Family Court"). 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the opposite party no.2 filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 09.10.2018, which was registered as Case No. 1317/11/2018 (Smt. Aisha Ayesha Vs. Abrar Khan). Thereafter, the settlement was reached on 05.01.2022 out of the Family Court and the opposite party no.2 went to Mumbai along with the applicant and she was living there with him, however, she came back from Mumbai to maternal home for delivery of baby. 4. It has been further submitted that the applicant got to know that the opposite party no.2 filed maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 09.10.2018, thereafter, the applicant inspected the case and came to know that ex-parte proceedings have been initiated by the Family Court vide order dated 25.02.2019 and the case was fixed for evidence. The applicant filed recall application against ex-parte order dated 25.02.2019, which Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rahul Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Abrar Khan Alias Abrar Samiullah Khan .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s)
was allowed vide order dated 02.01.2024 on the cost of Rs.1,000/-. 5. It has been further submitted that the written statement on 19.07.2024 was submitted by the applicant against maintenance application dated 09.10.2018, in which it is stated that the applicant is husband of the opposite party no.2 and marriage of both of the parties was solemnized on 13.05.2006, as per Muslim customs and traditions. The relationship between the parties was cordial and three sons were borne out of wedlock. 6. It has been further submitted that the applicant never troubled the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 was putting the applicant to undue pressure and asking him to leave the house and live with his in- laws.
The opposite party no.2 moved application for 25.10.2024 for interim maintenance. 7. It has been further submitted that the applicant wants to settle the dispute with the opposite party no.2 and he wants to bring her back. He has prayed for quashing of entire proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. 8. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State has submitted that entire proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. is pending. The wife has filed the application and case is yet to be decided. No order has been passed against the applicant and he has filed the application to quash the entire proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.., which is not maintainable. Whatever the applicant has to say, he has the opportunity to say before the Family Court. The inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be used in such a manner and the relief should not be granted to the applicant, who is not cooperating before the Family Court rather he has filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to delay the proceedings. 9. After going through the record, it is evident that the applicant is husband of the opposite party no.2 and the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. is pending before the Family Court. The applicant has to co- operate in the proceedings. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable against the maintenance proceedings at this stage. The applicant has remedy to approach the Family Court and file his evidence. 10. The application is, accordingly, rejected. A482 No. 10310 of 2025 2
11. It is made clear that the applicant will not seek adjournment before the Family Court. 12. Let this order be communicated to the Family Court forthwith. December 5, 2025 Mohit Singh/- A482 No. 10310 of 2025 3 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench